Has anyone registered a set that doesn't fit current guidelines?

shirohniichan

I decided to register my "transition year" set knowing that there is no category for such a thing. The closest one I could find was the complete US type set. The problem with doing this is that the set will still look only 40% complete even after I have collected all coins I intend to collect. The entire type set includes way too many coins, but none of the other existing set categories will let me post all of my coins.

What do you do when existing sets don't match what you're trying to achieve? Do you not even bother registering them at all, or do you compromise as I have?

What's even worse than that is my 1876 year set. Even when done it will look like a 1792-present US type set that's only 5% complete.

braddick

Nice to see you've joined the Registry. Welcome aboard! I knew a true collector like you couldn't keep away forever.

BNE

I registered a set that doesn't quite "fit" with the registry. I have a proof Jefferson nickel registry set that includes CAM/DCAM coins for the period from 1950 to 1964. But I also collect brilliant proof coins for that same period. Because you can't register the same coin twice in the same kind of set (I understand), and because I don't want to have to buy a second set of proofs for 1938-1942P just to have a "complete" second set, I named the full set the "cameo collection", named the other one the "brilliant collection (1950-1964)" and explained in the "owner's comments" section why the "incomplete" second set is really complete if you "borrow" the coins listed in the cameo set. It's anal, and no one really cares, but I wanted to redefine for myself what I consider the "complete" brilliant set to be.

You may want to explain the special aspects of your sets that cause them to look misleadingly incomplete on the registry by giving them a name that makes clear your "m.o.," and/or providing an explanation of your strategy in the owners' comments section.